Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

Last of the Fraggles said:
My 2 issues with this would be:

1. If the good guys are allowed to self-identify as good guys and identifiy who the bad guys are then anyone can justify doing anything
Click to expand...

Well then we better start trying figure out what good is and how to measure it. Once that's done we better etch the results into the minds of all humans memeticly. Oh, wait, that takes up most of intellectual life... Welcome to Earth!

2. If the good guys don't follow the rules or indulge in bad guy methods then what's the point of having good guys?
Click to expand...
What rules? You want people to follow rules just so rules mean something in society? Who cares about breaking rules? I care about missing opportunities to do the right thing because some Chomsky-like character is calling for "following the rules"

What methods? Like I say, good guy methods cause little or no unnecessary suffering. Was it bad to bomb the hell out of cities in WW2? I don't think you want to find out what would have happened if the allies didn't do that at all...

This is basically boiling down to whether the ends always justify the means.
Click to expand...
To me it's boiling down to men being men instead of philosophers and pseudointellectuals.
 
zooterkin said:
There's a big difference between not wishing he was still alive, and having misgivings about the way he died. A lot of the misgivings are to do with the way that the impression was given in the early reports that bin Laden was killed during a gunfight, and was using his wife as a shield, only for the apparent truth to emerge later. If the US had no doubts about their actions in assassinating him, why not be up front about it? It also seems quite legitimate to be concerned about the action of shooting an unarmed man; the argument about the SEAL team being concerned for their own safety seems spurious since they put themselves in that position. The last report I saw said that there was only one gunman shooting at the SEALs, who was apparently dealt with early on, yet they killed a total of six people, which does nothing to dispel the stereotype of trigger-happy American forces.

It may well be that the outcome was the best possible; that doesn't mean that we should just accept it without question. It also raises wider issues; if it is legitimate for a nation to send a hit squad into another country, then the circumstances in which that is allowable need to be very clearly defined. For example, is it acceptable for the Taliban to send a squad to kill the operators of the remotely piloted drones in their homes back in the US? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
Excellent post.
I have some ideas about why it has been largely ignored so far.
 
zooterkin said:
There's a big difference between not wishing he was still alive, and having misgivings about the way he died. A lot of the misgivings are to do with the way that the impression was given in the early reports that bin Laden was killed during a gunfight, and was using his wife as a shield, only for the apparent truth to emerge later.
Click to expand...
While it certainly raises my suspicions their explanation of "fog of war" isn't that far fetched. I remain unconvinced either way.
If the US had no doubts about their actions in assassinating him, why not be up front about it? It also seems quite legitimate to be concerned about the action of shooting an unarmed man; the argument about the SEAL team being concerned for their own safety seems spurious since they put themselves in that position. The last report I saw said that there was only one gunman shooting at the SEALs, who was apparently dealt with early on, yet they killed a total of six people, which does nothing to dispel the stereotype of trigger-happy American forces.
Click to expand...
At first Obama was just going to blow the entire place to high heaven but decided against it so they they could have better evidence of his death. Too bad they shot him in the face. Therefore any concerns about the SEALS safety or the actions of them inside are moot. Those people would have all been dead anyway.
It may well be that the outcome was the best possible; that doesn't mean that we should just accept it without question. It also raises wider issues; if it is legitimate for a nation to send a hit squad into another country, then the circumstances in which that is allowable need to be very clearly defined. For example, is it acceptable for the Taliban to send a squad to kill the operators of the remotely piloted drones in their homes back in the US? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
Because they are the bad guys objectively by any measure unless you are a deranged cult member? It comes down to how do you know who the bad guys and the good guys are.
 
jiggeryqua said:
I think that's what we call a false dichotomy, no? I'd rather live in a world where no country thought it was so superior to all others that it could turn up uninvited and execute anyone it had decided deserved it. I'd rather live in a world in which nobody blew anybody else up, for any reason. The US can do a lot about the first but very little about the other.

I'd rather not live in a country controlled by Bin Laden, even if it were America. I'd rather not live in a world where Trump controlled America - is it OK if I pop over and whack him (and his wife), just in case he wins? I'm the good guy, after all.

Here's another simple test: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" And another: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" Foolish of me to expect moral guidance from the USA, really.
Click to expand...

Yeah so which one? America or Bin Laden-land?
 
jiggeryqua said:
We declare what we do 'good', therefore we're the good guys? Yeah, he probably was saying that, eh? Do you suppose AQ look at their values and realise they're the 'bad' guys?

Which 'good' values make it OK to enter sovereign territory surreptitiously and execute someone without trial? Might is not right.
Click to expand...

Bin Laden started it and is an Islamofascist.

What do you prefer? Liberal democracy or Islamic totalitarianism?
 
Last edited:
bikerdruid said:
false.
prove it.
Click to expand...

It isn't difficult.

Chomsky is a supporter of Hizbullah -- the same Hizbullah that declares that the good thing about zionism is that by having the Jews in one place, it saves them the trouble of killing them all over the world. He is also is an apologist for Pol Pot, who murdered millions of his own people. And, of course, he considers 9/11 nothing more than justified "blowback" for the USA.

So when it comes to murdering all the Jews in Israel, or millions of Cambodians, or thousands of Americans in the twin towers, Chomsky at the very least is sympathetic to those who did, or wish to do, it, and often crosses the line towards actualy support of their actions (as in 9/11) or denial they happened (as in the case of Pol Pot, or his infamous support of holocaust denier Faurisson).
 
bikerdruid said:
do not presume to speak for me, please.
Click to expand...

No one really does.

bikerdruid said:
china holds your mortgage, to the tune of trillions..
giving them iraqi oil is a token gesture to your creditors.
Click to expand...

E..What? Wouldn't it make more sense to give to US companies so we can at least get tax?

Also, you do know we didn't control the bidding, right? :rolleyes:

bikerdruid said:
6% of 14 trillion, is still trillions.
Click to expand...

And no. It is $840 billion. lrn2math
 
stokes234 said:
Arresting him, and having him stand trial for war crimes. Killing him outright risks reprisals as well.
Click to expand...
Arresting him would have lead to hundreds of westerners being kidnapped with the demand that bin laden be released. The trial would drag on and on giving him front page news coverage everyday for months.

Even if all due process was performed to the highest of standards you's still get people moaning and whinging, wringing their hands along with the conspiracy nutters and jihadis going crazy too. You can't win. Better to slot the bastard and get on with it.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
Well I'm not a member of Al-Qaeda in Iraq so I'm only speculating but I'd think it would be connected with the invasion and occupation of Iraq by US forces.
Click to expand...

Al-Qeada in Iraqs parent organization declared holy war on the US and carried out its first attack against the US in 1998.

How were they reacting to the 2003 liberation of Iraq 5 years before it happened?

Last of the Fraggles said:
At this point I'm going to remind you that it's entirely possible for both sides of a conflict to be in the wrong and that two wrongs don't make a right.
Click to expand...

We're giving up "the one who started it is responsible" then? Or are we just trying to salvage some cake?
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
My 2 issues with this would be:

1. If the good guys are allowed to self-identify as good guys and identifiy who the bad guys are then anyone can justify doing anything

2. If the good guys don't follow the rules or indulge in bad guy methods then what's the point of having good guys?

This is basically boiling down to whether the ends always justify the means.
Click to expand...

And do you think the bad guys care about how the good guys self identify? Do you think bad guys care about whether the good guys limit themselves to legal, UN sanctioned operations?

What do you think will deter future bad guys from sending Panzers into Poland?
a) International Law and a lack of UN authorization
or
b) The USA

If you answered (b) then welcome to the real world.

Effectively, and this may be galling to some, we should all be thankful that the current superpower is the most fair, restrained and enlightened of all the hegemons to have graced the pages of history (and we should be damn glad that it isn't one of Russia, China, etc in its place).
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Al-Qeada in Iraqs parent organization declared holy war on the US and carried out its first attack against the US in 1998.

How were they reacting to the 2003 liberation of Iraq 5 years before it happened?
Click to expand...

Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the current invasion. It was the invasion that led to the removal of Sodamn Insane and allowed them to move in.

Sodamn Insane did not allow Bin Laden into Iraq because he recognized that Bin Laden had a better than fair chance of taking over in any country he went to. Insane did not allow religious fundamentalists to wield any real power because that threatened his authority. Iran on the other hand encourages religious crazies (the right sort of course) because it is how they maintain power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom